Wayne Rooney | 2012-14 Performances

Status
Not open for further replies.
wr8_utd said:
He talks a load of crap really. All his "information" only comes after something major has happened. His story on RvP to United in the summer came only after Fergie announced it in a press conference, his story about United wanting to get rid off Rooney came only after he was dropped to the bench for this match. If he knew something, why didn't he report it earlier? He always talks a whole load of rubbish on Twitter.
Click to expand...

Still following his outbursts now, he's a colossal twat. He's insisting that he's deeply offended by the notion that journalists just make stories up, whilst also dimissing Fergie's comments by saying that he has, in the past, said similar about players who were later sold.

I don't use twitter, but I'd love it if someone asked why exactly we should dismiss Fergie's statements due to a couple of instances of his being wrong about transfers over the years, but we should have faith in people who get transfers wrong literally hundreds of times a season...
 
Chabon said:
Still following his outbursts now, he's a colossal twat. He's insisting that he's deeply offended by the notion that journalists just make stories up, whilst also dimissing Fergie's comments by saying that he has, in the past, said similar about players who were later sold.

I don't use twitter, but I'd love it if someone asked why exactly we should dismiss Fergie's statements due to a couple of instances of his being wrong about transfers over the years, but we should have faith in people who get transfers wrong literally hundreds of times a season...
Click to expand...

If he had any sense he would admit it. John Richardson from the Daily Express said in an interview on MUTV earlier this morning that this week the journalists haven't shown themselves in a good light with completely knee jerk reactions to Rooney being a sub in one game - which he recognised was a tactic that was working and didn't warrant the media overdrive it sparked. That's the bottom line and he admitted it was all sparked unnecessarily by Rooney not starting one game. Ridiculous really
 
Chabon said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...k-future-Manchester-Uniteds-Wayne-Rooney.html

The press in this country really are ridiculously abusive of the nation's only genuinely world class footballer. I've been saying it for years, he should tell England to get fecked.
Click to expand...

Again, whilst 99% of that "article" is pure horse shit there is one good point

He is a natural footballer but not a natural athlete, and that is half the problem. If he dips even a fraction below peak condition, he is not the same player.
Click to expand...

I think there is some truth to that, yet maintaining that peak condition is not ALWAYS Waynes first thought, and even his biggest fans cannt deny that.
 
LR7 said:
If he had any sense he would admit it. John Richardson from the Daily Express said in an interview on MUTV earlier this morning that this week the journalists haven't shown themselves in a good light with completely knee jerk reactions to Rooney being a sub in one game - which he recognised was a tactic that was working and didn't warrant the media overdrive it sparked. That's the bottom line and he admitted it was all sparked unnecessarily by Rooney not starting one game. Ridiculous really
Click to expand...

Is that right? That's good to hear. Discussing this with a mate over the past 24 hours, he is still convinced the hacks are only in overdrive because they have been briefed by someone at OT that SAF wants rid, again citing the examples of Becks and then more recently the Rooney to City affair. If one of those same hacks has admitted the whole thing was in fact, as it seemed to be, a knee-jerk reaction to Rooney being dropped, that does hopefully put the matter to bed.

This whole thing has been a complete farce. I went to get my hair cut earlier, I dont usually read the tabloids but there were three on the table while I was waiting, all three of them had Rooney leaving stories on the back page. A nice reminder of why i usually stay well clear of them.
 
What good would telling the press we are considering selling Rooney do? It would unsettle Rooney and the team for the remainder of the season so it's not like Sir Alex would say anything else, as shown with the Beckham and Ronaldo quotes.

Sir Alex might be telling the truth this time but there's enough evidence of Fergie lies in the past to make me question the legitimacy of the quotes. I never bought in to the papers stories or have any real reason to think we want to sell, I just don't think Sir Alex saying we won't 100% proves that we won't.

Essentially, I wouldn't be too surprised/shocked if he did end up being sold this summer.
 
To put what I said above another way, IF John Richardson did come out and say, "fair play, sorry about all that, us journalists have been a bit silly again havent we? This was all a bit of nonsense" that to me would be worth a lot more than SAF unequivocally denying the rumours in his presser.

But I didnt see the John Richardson interview on MUTV so I dont know how seriously to take those comments.
 
Adebesi said:
To put what I said above another way, IF John Richardson did come out and say, "fair play, sorry about all that, us journalists have been a bit silly again havent we? This was all a bit of nonsense" that to me would be worth a lot more than SAF unequivocally denying the rumours in his presser.

But I didnt see the John Richardson interview on MUTV so I dont know how seriously to take those comments.
Click to expand...

I've watched it again and here is what he said:

It's been a mad few days and to be honest I don't think our profession has done ourselves any favours this week. I think it's been a knee jerk reaction to the fact that Wayne was put on the bench for tactical reasons, I mean as you know Robin van Persie's been on the bench this season but he's not leaving. It's been a bit of a circus the last couple of days and so he's (SAF) dampened everything down and said in emphatic terms "Wayne stays here".
Obviously Wayne would have been disappointed not starting, and the boss would have been disappointed if he hadn't have been disappointed, because everybody wants to start but the tactics, as we all saw, they did work.
Click to expand...
 
I fully embrace the consensus view that Fergie's decision before the game to bench Rooney was purely tactical and had nothing to do with a fallout between the two, but does anyone seriously embrace that decision with the benefit of hindsight?

Sometimes, great plans in theory blow up in your face. Playing Giggs in the right wing (you know, to cut in to his left for the shot outside the box) against Bayern in 99, for example. We won the game off two stoppage time corners, but we were thoroughly outplayed by Bayern (who were very unlucky not to destroy us) and Giggs was completely ineffective. Not starting Rooney v Real was ill-conceived and the evidence -- scoring only score once, from an own goal -- is conclusive that it was a colossal mistake to take one of your most lethal chess pieces -- arguably the most complete player not only in the team but also in the English league -- off the chessboard.

RvP had gone cold over the last few weeks. You still play him, of course, but let's admit he had gone cold and let's admit he was a relative non-factor in both games. Rooney had a spectacular performance over the weekend, hitting a distance shot that not even De Gea could have saved, and coolly setting up two others. We needed that extra piece of offensive firepower and guile in the event RvP would be ganged up on, which he was. The job was to outscore Real, not to hope that a 0-0 draw would send us through. The tactical mistake was to start Cleverley over Rooney. Even though Cleverley had a solid game, he's no Rooney. And let's admit it -- Cleverley had never in this kind of pressure cooker situation before and Rooney had, many times.
 
Glad that SAF put an end to the tabloid stories. Now they can get on to saying one of our other players is going to leave when they are left out of the team for a match or two.
 
Ruud10 said:
The job was to outscore Real, not to hope that a 0-0 draw would send us through. The tactical mistake was to start Cleverley over Rooney. Even though Cleverley had a solid game, he's no Rooney. And let's admit it -- Cleverley had never in this kind of pressure cooker situation before and Rooney had, many times.
Click to expand...

I must have imagined the part where we were up 1-0 and fully in control of the game up until the red card.

Giggs was the best player on the field so I don't see how you can question his inclusion on the wing can't be questioned therefore you're saying Rooney should have played centrally instead of Cleverley? That would've been a disaster. If you're saying Rooney should've played on the wing with Giggs in the center then you must be forgetting about how terribly inneffective Rooney was there in the first leg.

I'd imagine you're going to be mostly on your own on this one because up until the red card things were going extremely well for us.
 
Ruud10 said:
I fully embrace the consensus view that Fergie's decision before the game to bench Rooney was purely tactical and had nothing to do with a fallout between the two, but does anyone seriously embrace that decision with the benefit of hindsight?

Sometimes, great plans in theory blow up in your face. Playing Giggs in the right wing (you know, to cut in to his left for the shot outside the box) against Bayern in 99, for example. We won the game off two stoppage time corners, but we were thoroughly outplayed by Bayern (who were very unlucky not to destroy us) and Giggs was completely ineffective. Not starting Rooney v Real was ill-conceived and the evidence -- scoring only score once, from an own goal -- is conclusive that it was a colossal mistake to take one of your most lethal chess pieces -- arguably the most complete player not only in the team but also in the English league -- off the chessboard.

RvP had gone cold over the last few weeks. You still play him, of course, but let's admit he had gone cold and let's admit he was a relative non-factor in both games. Rooney had a spectacular performance over the weekend, hitting a distance shot that not even De Gea could have saved, and coolly setting up two others. We needed that extra piece of offensive firepower and guile in the event RvP would be ganged up on, which he was. The job was to outscore Real, not to hope that a 0-0 draw would send us through. The tactical mistake was to start Cleverley over Rooney. Even though Cleverley had a solid game, he's no Rooney. And let's admit it -- Cleverley had never in this kind of pressure cooker situation before and Rooney had, many times.
Click to expand...

Cleverley and Rooney don't play in the same position so how you've come up with the above is beyond me. Cleverley didn't start ahead of Rooney he came in for Jones and rightly so. Giggs played in Rooney's position (from the first leg) and as pointed out above he was the best player on the pitch so SAFs decision there was vindicated. What Giggsy did that Rooney struggled to do at the Bernabéu was to defend well on the wing, keeping Coentrao from overlapping and helping Rafael out with Cristiano - Rooney did this part effectively imo but he struggled to balance that defensive role whilst still maintaining a potent offensive outlet. Giggsy managed that as you saw with the cross in to RvP with the outside of his boot, plus he took Coentrao to school when he turned him inside out and won that corner and there were a fair few other moments in the game too.

For me the only real question is whether Rooney should have started over RvP given the fact that Rooney is the current in form striker out of the two. Hindsight says maybe, but we won't know how Rooney might have done in his place.
 
Adebesi said:
Is that right? That's good to hear. Discussing this with a mate over the past 24 hours, he is still convinced the hacks are only in overdrive because they have been briefed by someone at OT that SAF wants rid, again citing the examples of Becks and then more recently the Rooney to City affair. If one of those same hacks has admitted the whole thing was in fact, as it seemed to be, a knee-jerk reaction to Rooney being dropped, that does hopefully put the matter to bed.
Click to expand...

I think it was Sean Ingle on Football Weekly this week who said, before the whole Rooney saga last time there were leaks from both United and Paul Stretford about Rooney wanting to leave, this time round there has been nothing.
 
Ruud10 said:
I fully embrace the consensus view that Fergie's decision before the game to bench Rooney was purely tactical and had nothing to do with a fallout between the two, but does anyone seriously embrace that decision with the benefit of hindsight?

Sometimes, great plans in theory blow up in your face. Playing Giggs in the right wing (you know, to cut in to his left for the shot outside the box) against Bayern in 99, for example. We won the game off two stoppage time corners, but we were thoroughly outplayed by Bayern (who were very unlucky not to destroy us) and Giggs was completely ineffective. Not starting Rooney v Real was ill-conceived and the evidence -- scoring only score once, from an own goal -- is conclusive that it was a colossal mistake to take one of your most lethal chess pieces -- arguably the most complete player not only in the team but also in the English league -- off the chessboard.

RvP had gone cold over the last few weeks. You still play him, of course, but let's admit he had gone cold and let's admit he was a relative non-factor in both games. Rooney had a spectacular performance over the weekend, hitting a distance shot that not even De Gea could have saved, and coolly setting up two others. We needed that extra piece of offensive firepower and guile in the event RvP would be ganged up on, which he was. The job was to outscore Real, not to hope that a 0-0 draw would send us through. The tactical mistake was to start Cleverley over Rooney. Even though Cleverley had a solid game, he's no Rooney. And let's admit it -- Cleverley had never in this kind of pressure cooker situation before and Rooney had, many times.
Click to expand...

That is just an awful post.

Who embraced the decision using hindsight? Well everyone with a pair of eyes I should hope (including ferguson), as we completely stifled Madrid until the red card and created several of our own chances. A Real Madrid in red hot form.

The '99 final Giggs started on the right because he had more experience there and we were forced to play Beckham in CM because of the suspensions, unless we played Jonathan Greening.

Cleverley didn't start over Rooney, that would be Welbeck as SAF has already stated because of his ability to stop Alonso. It worked perfectly. I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion that it "is conclusive that it was a colossal mistake." Also, Cleverley has played in the majority of our biggest games this season, and done a perfectly good job. Rooney wasn't even THAT good vs Norwich and Van Persie was very good in the Bernabeu, despite the one glaring miss.
 
Playing Rooney in CM over cleverley would have been madness.

Playing Giggs there with Carrick with Rooney out wide too would have been worse that what we went with.

Seriously, even in hindsight, SAF was totally vindicated. We had total control over the game till the ref decided to ensure everyone would remember his name and face forever.
 
Ruud10 said:
I fully embrace the consensus view that Fergie's decision before the game to bench Rooney was purely tactical and had nothing to do with a fallout between the two, but does anyone seriously embrace that decision with the benefit of hindsight?

Sometimes, great plans in theory blow up in your face. Playing Giggs in the right wing (you know, to cut in to his left for the shot outside the box) against Bayern in 99, for example. We won the game off two stoppage time corners, but we were thoroughly outplayed by Bayern (who were very unlucky not to destroy us) and Giggs was completely ineffective. Not starting Rooney v Real was ill-conceived and the evidence -- scoring only score once, from an own goal -- is conclusive that it was a colossal mistake to take one of your most lethal chess pieces -- arguably the most complete player not only in the team but also in the English league -- off the chessboard.

RvP had gone cold over the last few weeks. You still play him, of course, but let's admit he had gone cold and let's admit he was a relative non-factor in both games. Rooney had a spectacular performance over the weekend, hitting a distance shot that not even De Gea could have saved, and coolly setting up two others. We needed that extra piece of offensive firepower and guile in the event RvP would be ganged up on, which he was. The job was to outscore Real, not to hope that a 0-0 draw would send us through. The tactical mistake was to start Cleverley over Rooney. Even though Cleverley had a solid game, he's no Rooney. And let's admit it -- Cleverley had never in this kind of pressure cooker situation before and Rooney had, many times.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Brosstan said:
Id have played Rooney ahead of Cleverley myself, even with the tactical decision to play Welbeck to stifle Alonso. Rooney can do a good job even in midfield and is one of our biggest potential match winners.
Click to expand...

He's a match winner when playing upfront or just behind the striker. not in CM against one of the strongest CMs out there. Christ.
 
Ruud10 said:
I fully embrace the consensus view that Fergie's decision before the game to bench Rooney was purely tactical and had nothing to do with a fallout between the two, but does anyone seriously embrace that decision with the benefit of hindsight?

Sometimes, great plans in theory blow up in your face. Playing Giggs in the right wing (you know, to cut in to his left for the shot outside the box) against Bayern in 99, for example. We won the game off two stoppage time corners, but we were thoroughly outplayed by Bayern (who were very unlucky not to destroy us) and Giggs was completely ineffective. Not starting Rooney v Real was ill-conceived and the evidence -- scoring only score once, from an own goal -- is conclusive that it was a colossal mistake to take one of your most lethal chess pieces -- arguably the most complete player not only in the team but also in the English league -- off the chessboard.

RvP had gone cold over the last few weeks. You still play him, of course, but let's admit he had gone cold and let's admit he was a relative non-factor in both games. Rooney had a spectacular performance over the weekend, hitting a distance shot that not even De Gea could have saved, and coolly setting up two others. We needed that extra piece of offensive firepower and guile in the event RvP would be ganged up on, which he was. The job was to outscore Real, not to hope that a 0-0 draw would send us through. The tactical mistake was to start Cleverley over Rooney. Even though Cleverley had a solid game, he's no Rooney. And let's admit it -- Cleverley had never in this kind of pressure cooker situation before and Rooney had, many times.
Click to expand...
How could it be a mistake when it worked so well? Since when has Rooney been better at ball-winning then Cleverley?

For all Rooney's good points I have to disagree that he is the most complete player in the team never mind trying to stretch it to include the PL.

If you notice he loses the ball often, chases after it but doesn't win it back and has a habit of playing very loose passes in tight spots. Winning tackles isn't his strong point either. Cleverley has attributes that Rooney doesn't possess and that's why he managed to accomplish all of the above on Tuesday, just as he has on previous occasions.

Added to that Rooney and Hernandez are the two best strikers to use from the bench.

Rooney's a workhorse and when he's playing well can score and his long ball passes across the pitch are pretty neat too, but let's not get too carried away with these abilities that he doesn't really possess.
 
Expected to come on here able to issue a childish 'I told you so', but I see that some are still playing the game of responding to evidence of one thing by becoming even more entrenched in their belief in the opposite.

Evil genius Frogie weaving a web of deceit again, biding his time before he sells one of our best players for no reason whatsoever. Ok.
 
Rooney should have started in place of Rafael to deal with the Ronaldo threat, he wouldn't have scored if that was the case.
 
Brightonian said:
Expected to come on here able to issue a childish 'I told you so', but I see that some are still playing the game of responding to evidence of one thing by becoming even more entrenched in their belief in the opposite.

Evil genius Frogie weaving a web of deceit again, biding his time before he sells one of our best players for no reason whatsoever. Ok.
Click to expand...

I don't think too many people are using Sir Alex's quotes to further their agenda that he's going to sell Rooney, they're just taking the quotes with a pinch of salt. I take most things Sir Alex says with a pinch of salt because he tends to lie when it'll benefit him. I'm not saying we'll sell Rooney, but Sir Alex saying we won't doesn't definitively mean we won't.
 
Brightonian said:
Expected to come on here able to issue a childish 'I told you so', but I see that some are still playing the game of responding to evidence of one thing by becoming even more entrenched in their belief in the opposite.
Click to expand...

Oh, 'twas ever thus my friend. How naive of you to think otherwise.

It's always believed that Fergie lies, in order that unfettered muppet fantasies would blossom.
 
Unless Rooney does his old tricks again i cant ever see him leaving, we rarely move players on until it is passed there time - look at O'shea, Brown, Park. We give them until they are not guaranteed first team football anymore, and then allow them to leave to their choice.

Rooney and Fergie seem to have a good relationship and no doubt have arguements as all employee / boss do, but i cant see how it would have damaged their relationship as press suggest.
 
gza the genius said:
I don't think too many people are using Sir Alex's quotes to further their agenda that he's going to sell Rooney, they're just taking the quotes with a pinch of salt. I take most things Sir Alex says with a pinch of salt because he tends to lie when it'll benefit him. I'm not saying we'll sell Rooney, but Sir Alex saying we won't doesn't definitively mean we won't.
Click to expand...

Does he? It's an opinion that gets bandied about a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen evidence that Fergie's told an outright lie on a big issue like this. I've seen him genuinely have to change his mind, which is a different thing entirely - for example, he sold Ronaldo to Madrid in 2009 having made the 'virus' comments the year before. But he wasn't lying in that instance - he backed up the comments by refusing to allow Ronaldo to leave in 2008. He just had less choice in the matter the year after that.

When he makes a categorical statement like this, I don't see that there's any particular reason to take it with a pinch of salt.

Besides, you only seem to apply that logic when it supports the 'doom and gloom' side of the argument. If Fergie had come out and said 'he won't be here next year, you have my word on that', there is absolutely no way you'd be telling us to take it with a pinch of salt.
 
Brosstan said:
Id have played Rooney ahead of Cleverley myself, even with the tactical decision to play Welbeck to stifle Alonso. Rooney can do a good job even in midfield and is one of our biggest potential match winners.
Click to expand...

A matchwinner if he plays in midfield? No chance.
 
Brightonian -

What benefit would telling us he won't be here next year gain for Sir Alex? It would unsettle Rooney and the team for the remainder of the year. Making that sort of statement will only ever prove to be harmful.

As far as Sir Alex's history of beneficial lies, a lot of them generally have to do with injuries/availability of players for games, but even on this specific subject you have his Beckham quotes which echo the exact same sentiment as his quotes today.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying he's lying by any means, I just don't think these quotes change anything regarding Rooney's likelihood to be here next season.
 
I think anyone who blindly accepts SAF refuting these stories as the truth is as stupid as those who blindly accept the newspaper stories. Newspapers are often full of shit but it's not like SAF is a paragon of honesty. He's said similar things before selling Ronaldo, Beckham and, I'm sure, several others.

Having said that, I don't think Rooney is gonna be going anywhere either. That doesn't mean there wasn't more to him being dropped than just tactics though, or that he isn't more dispensable now than at any other point in his united career.
 
Rooney should have started ahead of de gea in goal..

That way, after the sending off, he could have played as an inverted sweeper and scored the winner.
 
gza the genius said:
Brightonian -

What benefit would telling us he won't be here next year gain for Sir Alex? It would unsettle Rooney and the team for the remainder of the year. Making that sort of statement will only ever prove to be harmful.

As far as Sir Alex's history of beneficial lies, a lot of them generally have to do with injuries/availability of players for games, but even on this specific subject you have his Beckham quotes which echo the exact same sentiment as his quotes today.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying he's lying by any means, I just don't think these quotes change anything regarding Rooney's likelihood to be here next season.
Click to expand...

1. No, people claim they do. Just because the caf is filled with inexplicable 'he's not really injured, it's just a cover because we're selling him' bollocks every time Rooney or Nani gets injured doesn't make it true. The last bout of those we got came when Nani was hobbling around in a full leg cast for a month. It's madness.

2. You contend that Fergie coming out and giving his word that Rooney is going nowhere doesn't change the likelihood of Rooney going at all? Even if he lies sometimes, that's surely silly. It must make it seem at least a little less likely, even to you.
 
Brightonian said:
Does he? It's an opinion that gets bandied about a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen evidence that Fergie's told an outright lie on a big issue like this. I've seen him genuinely have to change his mind, which is a different thing entirely - for example, he sold Ronaldo to Madrid in 2009 having made the 'virus' comments the year before. But he wasn't lying in that instance - he backed up the comments by refusing to allow Ronaldo to leave in 2008. He just had less choice in the matter the year after that.

When he makes a categorical statement like this, I don't see that there's any particular reason to take it with a pinch of salt.

Besides, you only seem to apply that logic when it supports the 'doom and gloom' side of the argument. If Fergie had come out and said 'he won't be here next year, you have my word on that', there is absolutely no way you'd be telling us to take it with a pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

Before the game, in his ITV interview, SAF said they felt Wayne needed more games and that was the reason he was dropped, alongside the tactical reasons. It's interesting how there's no mention of that today in the presser and how on here it's been forgotten because we really want to believe the tactic argument.

He needs more games and we're in March! I still, despite what's been said today, wouldn't be surprised if he left.
 
There was literally no point at all in SAF addressing the Wayne Rooney rumours in today's press conference was there? People were definitely going to pull out the old 'well he might be lying'. He may as well never say anything again.
 
Brightonian said:
1. No, people claim they do. Just because the caf is filled with inexplicable 'he's not really injured, it's just a cover because we're selling him' bollocks every time Rooney or Nani gets injured doesn't make it true. The last bout of those we got came when Nani was hobbling around in a full leg cast for a month. It's madness.

2. You contend that Fergie coming out and giving his word that Rooney is going nowhere doesn't change the likelihood of Rooney going at all? Even if he lies sometimes, that's surely silly. It must make it seem at least a little less likely, even to you.
Click to expand...

1. I'm talking about times when he's come and said a player definitely wouldn't be available for a game and then a day later he's in the starting lineup. I'm not referring to anything like the Nani situation, I never bought in to him not being injured at all.

2. He knew it was going to be a talking point and answered in the only way I would've expected him to. I genuinely can't think of a reason he would say anything other than what he did. Any doubt in his answer and the press jump all over it and disrupt the remainder of the season, if he says Rooney will be gone then Rooney won't be the same. His only real option for now is to say what he did (which very well could be the truth).
 
amolbhatia100 said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

Please explain your "reply", amolbhatia100.

We lost the fukking game. Blame the ref for sending us down to 10 men, but where was our offensive threat before the sending off? Nowhere. We got a fluky own goal off great hustle by Nani, but we were hardly carving up Real. Cleverley had a good game, but is Cleverley now a more dominating offensive -- and defensive -- presence than Rooney? Hardly.

The argument for dropping Rooney, presumably, is that he was shit against Real at the Bernabeau, so it stands to reason he'd be shit at Old Trafford. So, Rooney is now shit against great Spanish sides?

Let's take this one step at a time for you slow learners.

#1. Wayne Rooney, if not our best player (let's assume RvP for the sake of humor) is certainly no worse than our second best player.

#2. Wayne Rooney put in a fantastic performance over the weekend, so "form" cannot be used against him.

#3. RvP was equally "poor", if that's how we wish to put it, as Rooney was at the Bernabeau. And RvP has been out of form in recent weeks, at least by his standards. But no sane man would have proposed dropping RvP.

#4. We got the job done at the Bernabeau. No one expected us to win the game there and many of us would have been satisfied enough with a 1-2 loss. The mission was accomplished. You don't dramatically bust up XI's that accomplish their mission. A tweak here and there (for example, Vidic over Evans) but you don't gut the side of their second best, and arguably best, player.

#5. The game was played at Old Trafford, where Rooney is normally outstanding. At home we play to win -- not to not lose -- and Rooney is normally instrumental in our wins, at least over the last 6-8 seasons. And certainly the previous weekend.

#6. RvP and Rooney have developed a fantastic "understanding", as you Brits like to put it. We needed to score two goals, probably three, to have a chance of going through (because of the perverse effect of the away goals rule in the second leg if you're at home) and there was no way we were going to score 2, let alone, 3 goals with Rooney rotting on the bench.

Fergie, we all know, is the greatest manager of any club in the history of all sports. As I've written before, only John Wooden comes close in my estimation. His understanding of human nature, how to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts, how to lift his players beyond their normal capabilities when all seems lost, is without peer since King Leonidas (okay, I jest). But it was a curious act, at least, to drop a player like Rooney, presumably on the ground that he had a bad game against Real a few weeks before. If there was something else -- a question of fitness, a question about his commitment to the club, a desire to send a message to him for whatever reason we're not aware -- then we cannot question Fergie. But if it is only about what we believe it to be about, a tactical decision, then it was a tactical mistake which we not only could have anticipated, but which was saw happened right before our very eyes.

Fergie got the back line right (Vidic over Evans), he got the decision to go with Nani right, he even got the decision to go with Giggs right, but he did not get the decision to go with Cleverley over Rooney right. Give him credit for the massive bet at the roulette table, but it didn't work. Flog the Turkish cnut for his role, but let it not obscure the fact we weren't breaking down the Real back line in a sustained manner until late in the game when, by coincidence, Rooney came on. We defended brilliantly and held Real scoreless until just after the red card. But when you look back does anyone really believe we could have held Real scoreless for 90 minutes?

But if Rooney truly was suffering from a "sinus problem", or some other serious malady, then the decision to bench him made perfect sense.

I don't buy the "he's gone" speculation and I don't buy the "he's unfit" argument. It was a tactical roll of the dice, which unfortunately came up snake eyes. Shit happens and we have to move on. But if we find ourselves in an important game in the FA Cup or against City in early April and Rooney starts on the bench again, it's not going to be as easy to dismiss the "he's gone" speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.